If you accept that there was an oral tradition before, then we can trace it back. For example if we see agreement between Sarvāstivādin and Theravādin texts then we can date these to around 250 B.C., roughly around the time of the 3rd council. Isn't that a great thing? I think it is. Why wouldn't you want to see what teaching was around in the earliest of times? If you don't accept a valid oral tradition then of course this is nonsense, but if you do not accept said tradition I find it strange then that you are so orthodox.Eko Care wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 3:05 pmThe maximum accurate assumption that can be derived by the textual analysis is, it's written date.
How can the written date be considered as a fact for proving a text as inaccurate or unnecessary?
It is just written date.
Therefore such approach is "immature".
Anyway, this isn't the early buddhism forum.